Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • They did not keep it. They gave it back when the trial was settled out of court. I do not know why they held on to in the first place, but my guess is that they were holding it as a bargaining chip.


    They answered the question in their deposition and it was posted upthread. They basically said that maybe they couldn't get much out of it but someone else could.


    But let me lob the ball into your court. Do you think the Penon report proves he has something?

    ***Proves? No way. If it was PROOF then he would have stayed in for the whole nut of $89Milplus treble damages.



    Do you see any merit in it?

    ***I haven't examined the evidence yet. I like to read both sides of a story before coming up with an assessment.



    Do you believe he actually had a heat exchanger on the second floor, as he claimed in his testimony?

    ***No I do not. I believe there were plans to install a heat exchanger but the two sides had an early falling out and started trading bullshit.

  • How very 21st century. Doxing, fake names, people ghosting and reappearing . . .


    Yes, how true. Rossi inspired some legitimate research with his Ecat type systems, but unfortunately some others decided to copy his lying. me356 was one, and Suhas another. This is a good summary of what Suhas learned from the master: http://energycatalyzer3.com/ne…on-device-cannot-be-found

    MFMP flew all the way to India at his invite, only to be subjected to the run-around.


    Good liars can go a long way. Get caught in one lie, just cover with another. Never admit the contradictions that pile up. Works remarkably well. I think we LENR believers are especially susceptible. Maybe that is a good reason we welcome critics here.

  • me356 is not going on the list. He slipped back on here as another avatar, and ran us all in circles until we figured it out.

    Damn, does this mean that this Johnny tricked his hopeful followers all time long?


    Why didn’t you reveal this earlier?

    It would be a good starting point for a “lessons learned” thread: What can be learned from the me356 tale?

  • Damn, does this mean that this Johnny tricked his hopeful followers all time long?


    Why didn’t you reveal this earlier?

    It would be a good starting point for a “lessons learned” thread: What can be learned from the me356 tale?


    Makes you wonder how we can demand open source science, yet cover for, and protect those who are caught openly deceiving us.

  • Makes you wonder how we can demand open source science, yet cover for, and protect those who are caught openly deceiving us.


    At least for me (since I realized who he actually was from much earlier on, but didn't reveal it in public hoping that there might have been valid reasons other than deceit) it's not a matter of covering or protecting those people, but one of not being a hypocrite when it comes to respect personal privacy, similarly to the idea of how "free speech" does not only exist to protect speech one might already like - which many people nowadays seem to forget (although this is unrelated with LENR-Forum).


    Anyway, if the cat is out of the bag an appropriate thread could now be dedicated to the subject and related posts and discussion here be moved there.

  • Do you see any merit in it [the Penon report]?

    ***I haven't examined the evidence yet. I like to read both sides of a story before coming up with an assessment.

    Stop right there. If you have not come up with an assessment of the Penon report, then you have no business commenting on Rossi. You have no right to any opinion. You should only say: "I have not evaluated Rossi's report so I don't know."


    I have read the report, and I have evaluated it. I say it is garbage. You have no business disagreeing with me.


    There are not "two sides" to this paper, or any other technical paper. A paper is evaluated on its own merits, and its logic and fidelity to the textbook laws of physics. You do not have read another paper to see that that the Penon report is garbage. Spend five minutes looking at the data and you will see that. Or, if you do not see that, you are incompetent.


    You do not have to read another paper spelling out the problems, but several papers have been published, such as:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.65_Exhibit_65.pdf

  • Stop right there. If you have not come up with an assessment of the Penon report, then you have no business commenting on Rossi. You have no right to any opinion. You should only say: "I have not evaluated Rossi's report so I don't know."


    I have read the report, and I have evaluated it. I say it is garbage. You have no business disagreeing with me.


    You are completely wrong. It was way clear that it was garbage after the Levi's first report on the January 14, 2011 (1) demo, where it was claimed - thanks to the misrepresentation of the steam dryness, the water flow and the test duration (2) - the production of 12 kW of excess heat coming from a tabletop device fed with 1 kW of input power.


    No need to read and evaluate any other Ecat paper issued after 2011.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (2) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83

  • You are completely wrong. It was way clear that it was garbage after the Levi's first report on the January 14, 2011 (1) demo, where it was claimed - thanks to the misrepresentation of the steam dryness, the water flow and the test duration (2) - the production of 12 kW of excess heat coming from a tabletop device fed with 1 kW of input power.

    I am not wrong about that. I agree that the first Levi paper was mistaken. I think the second Levi paper might have merit, but the third one went back to being wrong. So, all in all, I don't think much of Levi.


    No need to read and evaluate any other Ecat paper issued after 2011.

    You have to read read and evaluate a paper to judge it. An author can be wrong the first time, and right the second time. Granted, the Penon report was so bad, I wouldn't bother reading anything more from Rossi. I did not see the latest demonstration with the singing puppets for that reason. However, I would not express my own opinions about that demonstration either. I didn't see it, so I will not judge it.


    Other people whose opinions I trust say it was awful, and I expect they are right.

  • Stop right there. If you have not come up with an assessment of the Penon report, then you have no business commenting on Rossi.

    Baloney. Industrial Heat generated their own opinion on the Penon report when they spent $4 million more than they needed to on legal fees by going after Rossi's IP. If you can't see that then you have no business commenting on Rossi.

  • We welcome skeptics for their constructive criticisms...emphasis on the word "constructive". They are not invited here to provoke and shame us for believing LENR exists, as Ascoli is increasingly resorting to doing.


    Show respect for our opinions, and we will do the same in return.

  • Baloney. Industrial Heat generated their own opinion on the Penon report when they spent $4 million more than they needed to on legal fees by going after Rossi's IP.

    You missed my point. I am not talking about I.H. I said you do not need to read both sides to come up with a technical assessment of the Penon report. You can judge the report on its own merits. You said:


    "I haven't examined the evidence yet. I like to read both sides of a story before coming up with an assessment."


    There are not "two sides" to calorimetry.



    Regarding your statement above, I do not think I.H. spent $4 million on legal fees "going after" Rossi's IP. He filed suit against them, not the other way around. They spent $4 million trying to stop him from taking hundreds of millions more. They were afraid that a jury of stupid people might award him the money.


    I do not think he would have stopped even if they had offered to return the IP. I think he would have said they still owed him the money, based on the Penon report. He would have said, "you bought it, now finish paying for it." The way a car dealer would demand you keep paying, and would not offer to reimburse you the full cost of a 2-year old car. That is my impression.

  • Fortunately for everyone, the court records are public and Rossi did NOT do what you conjectured he would do.



    And also , the Penon report is part of the public record, as well as the counter report for the court. If it were such a slam dunk as you postulate, Rossi would have had to payback the $11mil. So the Penon report wasn't enough to move Rossi into $89mil slam dunk territory, and the counter report wasn't enough to get a slam dunk $11mil back from Rossi.


    That makes the report less than compelling reading material when you look at it from both sides.

  • Fortunately for everyone, the court records are public and Rossi did NOT do what you conjectured he would do.

    As you say, this was my conjecture. So of course he did not do it. That's what "conjecture" means. However, he also did not offer to give the money back. Based on what he said and did, I conclude that he wanted the rest of the money and he was not willing to buy back the IP. Are you saying IH should have given it to him for free, writing off the $10 million?


    And also , the Penon report is part of the public record, as well as the counter report for the court. If it were such a slam dunk as you postulate, Rossi would have had to payback the $11mil. So the Penon report wasn't enough to move Rossi into $89mil slam dunk territory,

    Nothing would move Rossi into the slam dunk territory. But you are missing the point. I am not evaluating the report in terms of the effect it had on the trial, or on Rossi's behavior. I am saying that technical content of the report is garbage. It is full of lies and impossible nonsense. That is my conclusion based on my knowledge of calorimetry. It has nothing to do with what I.H. said or Rossi said or did. If Rossi had somehow won the $89 million on the strength of that report, the report would still be garbage.


    That makes the report less than compelling reading material when you look at it from both sides.

    There are not two sides to calorimetry or the laws of physics. You seem to mean IH's side. What they thought does not count. It has no effect on how flowmeters work.

    1. Frank Acland April 14, 2019 at 2:12 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      You have mentioned that you have experienced some problems with the first SK reactor. What kinds of problems are you referring to:

      a) E-Cat reactor malfunctioning

      b) Control system malfunctioning

      c) Heat exchanger malfunctioning

      d) Remote control system malfunctioning

      Also, have you solved the problems that have come up, or are you still in the process of solving them.

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

    2. Translate Andrea Rossi April 14, 2019 at 5:15 PM

      Frank Acland:

      a) yes

      b) no

      c) yes

      d) yes

      All resolved ( so far )

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.